The homicide rate charts that andyb linked to are indeed interesting, and everything just screams that it's poverty that's associated with murder. Poverty and social instability.

Some countries that are "more socialist" than the average have a very low murder rate - others don't do as well, America is possibly the least-socialist "first world" country on the list and its murder rate (comparatively) is through the roof - whether this is a "direct-link" is very difficult to say.

I don't think that there is a statistician in the world that would not correlate poverty with crime - but that is a long stretch to suggest that simply handing money out to "poor people" will reduce crime. Statisticians will tell you that the poorest will still exist, and some people will still commit crime - therefore there is no end to crime and poverty until everyone has the same wealth - this is a horrible situation called socialism (others might have other names for it, but most of those are political).

I for one, don't like socialism for the basic reasons, (that some people hold to be true) as it simply means that lazy people gain from people who work hard, the opposite should be true. Hard work should reward, and laziness should deprive - these are the rough but fair terms that nature hands out.

However, I do truly believe that there should be "some" socialist bodies that everyone pays for at the same rate regardless of usage, the NHS is that very example. Without it we would be as fat as Americans, and as short lived. The NHS is probably the largest and best run (although we constantly complain about it) single organization on earth, and the last time I saw some numbers, it was about the 8th largest employer on the planet (excluding army's) and remember that this IS a socialist concept.

Crime is linked to poverty - there is no doubt about the link, but each of these things feeds the other turning into a vicious-circle.

Impoverished areas do not appear overnight, they usually take many years, decades or even generations to become as bad as they are, this is how I see them coming about.

Poverty is often a direct cause of stupidity / poor education. Stupid people and those who are not stupid but have had a poor education rarely get well paid jobs - if you have a low paid job you have to live somewhere that is cheap. Cheaper areas attract immigrants who cant communicate, those who cant communicate cant get well paid jobs. These people breed and their children go to local schools, the schools do not attract quality teachers because better teachers live in nicer areas, this in turn gives a poorer quality of education as well as having more classroom disruption from those who don't want to learn. This further solidifies the areas status as a "poor crime-ridden shithole" meaning that richer better educated (cleverer) people avoid the area, and those better educated (cleverer) people who were raised in that area move out of the area leaving a space for yet another person who cant afford to live somewhere nice moving in concentrating further the areas problems including the crime-rate.

This is a vicious-circle that is difficult to break and I am sure can be seen in every country on earth.

As we in the UK have seen, more benefits does not fix the problem (socialism), mass immigration makes the problem worse, concentrations of stupid / poorly educated people and those who cannot communicate makes the problem worse.

Poverty is NOT an excuse for people to commit crime, individual people committing individual criminal acts are to blame.

With the attacker dead in this case it's more difficult to know his motive but a racial or religious motive seems possible. I'm sure we're now going to hear the usual response that if more people carried guns, they could have killed the attacker first...

Sikh's have been attacked in the US by people so stupid they don't know the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh.

So if these people are so stupid that they attack a person they mistake for being of a different religion that they want to attack for some misplaced reason, why are they allowed to have guns?!? If they are that stupid, that's enough of a reason not to let them get their hands on one.

So if these people are so stupid that they attack a person they mistake for being of a different religion that they want to attack for some misplaced reason, why are they allowed to have guns?!? If they are that stupid, that's enough of a reason not to let them get their hands on one.

I think we have been through that previously. But the latest is that shooter was discharged from US military service in 1998 for "patterns of misconduct."

So he has history and that is the kind of history you should be worried about. Why not ban him from owning weapons for life?

Maybe you could suggest the exact wording of the law you propose to do that (while making sure that it still complies with the 2nd Ammendment and the right to bear arms).

Posy-phrasing a little, but maybe something along the lines of "if the well regulated militia (whose day job is working with guns) doesn't trust you to work with guns, you shouldn't be allowed to own guns"??

Posy-phrasing a little, but maybe something along the lines of "if the well regulated militia (whose day job is working with guns) doesn't trust you to work with guns, you shouldn't be allowed to own guns"??

Not specific enough to pass muster in any US Court. The shooter in Colorado was obviously mentally ill (seeing a psychiatrist who was very concerned about the situation), but it is hard to obtain prior restraint unless a person is ruled mentally incompetent by a court of law (which is usually too late).

But your comments reveal a common misunderstanding. The term "well regulated militia" in the Constitution does not refer to the US Military, it refers to state and local militias.

The shooter in Wisconsin was apparently a member of a Neo-Nazi organization. One thing that many outside the US don't understand is the being a Nazi (or Communist, etc) is not illegal in the US. In fact, there are no political parties that can be outlawed in the US. Individuals or groups who conspire to commit crimes (or actually commit crimes) can be prosecuted, but outside of that the political group cannot be outlawed as happens in many EU countries, and persons of that group cannot be held responsible for the actions of others in the group unless there is a direct connection proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Maybe you could suggest the exact wording of the law you propose to do that (while making sure that it still complies with the 2nd Ammendment and the right to bear arms).

I wouldn't sod around with some fancy wording to get round the 2nd amendment. I would change the 2nd amendment so that it didn't have the right to bear arms in it, or it should be put into modern English, the right to create an army.... which you already have.

But this is me stating the same thing yet again, no doubt I will get the same answers yet again

If the (the now thankfully dead) murderer didn't know the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh then he should have been declared so stupid that giving the man a gun license would be a criminal offense itself - will there now be an investigation to get answers and prosecution for the people who "allowed" this criminally insane person get the weapons and ammo to murder 6 people. I know this has happened before with other people of equal stupidity, and the same question applies to them - why were they allowed guns.?

Posy-phrasing a little, but maybe something along the lines of "if the well regulated militia (whose day job is working with guns) doesn't trust you to work with guns, you shouldn't be allowed to own guns"??

Not specific enough to pass muster in any US Court.

Well yes, that's why I said I was posy-phrasing. I'm not going to argue this to the death because a) it's pointless, and b) it's your country, so you can run it as you will.

Quote:

But your comments reveal a common misunderstanding. The term "well regulated militia" in the Constitution does not refer to the US Military, it refers to state and local militias.

No I absolutely understand this. I do find the idea of state and local militias a bit 19th century, but maybe that's just me.

I would find it worrying if you were suggesting that the US Military weren't a well regulated militia, and/or didn't have a good grasp of who could or couldn't be trusted with the sexy lethal kit your government spends a lot of your taxes buying.

The shooter in Wisconsin was apparently a member of a Neo-Nazi organization. One thing that many outside the US don't understand is the being a Nazi (or Communist, etc) is not illegal in the US. In fact, there are no political parties that can be outlawed in the US. Individuals or groups who conspire to commit crimes (or actually commit crimes) can be prosecuted, but outside of that the political group cannot be outlawed as happens in many EU countries, and persons of that group cannot be held responsible for the actions of others in the group unless there is a direct connection proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

You can form a political party of any kind you wish in the UK, so long as it doesn't advocate obvious racism (BNP), or violence (various muslim groups), anything else unsavoury simply wont get enough backing from voters to get any power or popular backing.

Also, why on earth would "Communist political parties" be banned.? They do not intend to break the law (until they get into power, which they wont), they do not advocate violence etc etc. Any country that bans "Communist political parties" is an undemocratic country.

You can form a political party of any kind you wish in the UK, so long as it doesn't advocate obvious racism (BNP), or violence (various muslim groups), anything else unsavoury simply wont get enough backing from voters to get any power or popular backing.

Also, why on earth would "Communist political parties" be banned.? They do not intend to break the law (until they get into power, which they wont), they do not advocate violence etc etc. Any country that bans "Communist political parties" is an undemocratic country.

In the US, no political party can be banned, even for advocating racism.

As to why some might want to ban a Communist Party, I just meant that no party on the left or right can be banned in the US. Individuals (not political parties) who advocate violent overthrow of the government can be charged with a crime, but even this can be tricky.

In the US, no political party can be banned, even for advocating racism.

As to why some might want to ban a Communist Party, I just meant that no party on the left or right can be banned in the US. Individuals (not political parties) who advocate violent overthrow of the government can be charged with a crime, but even this can be tricky.

Thats interesting to know, I know that in some countries in Europe (France, Austria and Germany, maybe others) Nazi political party's are banned and denying the Holocaust happened will get you arrested which is fine by me.

Any country that bans "Communist political parties" is an undemocratic country.

The US went through a period of communist witchhunts in the 1950's after the introduction of the Smith Act of 1940. Strangely what this was about is opposing the possible violent overthrow of the government - what we are advised was the purpose of the 2nd ammendment.

m0002a wrote:

Maybe you could suggest the exact wording of the law you propose to do that (while making sure that it still complies with the 2nd Ammendment and the right to bear arms).

For a start make your weapon controls nationwide, this would make enforcement easier.

Next keep a government register of organisations associated with hatecrimes and terrorism. This would also allow you to do things like stopping Fred Phelps and his group from protesting at funerals of troups. I'm sure the FBI and CIA have their own lists of people and groups they monitor outside of the law, this would legitimise what they can do and set limits.

Then extend the background checks for getting a weapon. Previous affiliation with any blacklisted group equals rejection. I'm not sure how being referred to a psychiatrist works in the US but if they are referred from a doctor then a simple way would be a doctors reference being required. Ask the doctor if the person is fit to use a weapon, does not have a history of mental health issues or suicide attempts and has not been referred to a psychiatrist. If the doctor says they have been referred to a psychiatrist, check with the psychiatrist. Negative from doctor and/or pshyciatrist equals rejection.

Or change to how many other countries work their laws: any newer law replaces any older law. This is why it is not legal for anyone in the UK to kill anyone else even if they're Welsh, it's a Sunday and you happen to be the Bishop of Hereford. A common misconception in the US is that this sort of law is still valid which is just not true - ultimately the 2001 EU convention on human rights overrides it but many other laws have been in between.

No I absolutely understand this. I do find the idea of state and local militias a bit 19th century, but maybe that's just me.

Yes, it is actually 18th century (1791 to be exact). But it based on the assumption that the Federal government should not have complete power over the states, as described in the US Constitution Bill of Rights (9th and 10th amendments in particular).

nutball wrote:

I would find it worrying if you were suggesting that the US Military weren't a well regulated militia, and/or didn't have a good grasp of who could or couldn't be trusted with the sexy lethal kit your government spends a lot of your taxes buying.

Nidal Malik Hasan was a psychiatrist with rank of Major in the US Army. He killed 13 people and wounded 29 others when he was told that he would be serving a tour of duty in the Middle East (in a capacity of psychiatrist).

"Internal Army reports indicate officers within the Army had discussed what they characterized as Hasan's tendencies toward radical Islam since 2005. Investigations before and after the shooting discovered e-mail communications between Hasan and Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who quickly declared Hasan a hero, as "fighting against the U.S. army is an Islamic duty". After communications between the two were forwarded to FBI terrorism task forces in 2008, they determined that Hasan was not a threat prior to the shooting and that his questions to al-Awlaki were consistent with medical research."

So much for a well-regulated Army.

It appears that the US mass murders have been perpetrated by mentally ill persons.

James Eagan Holmes killed 12 people and injured 58 others at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater. Holmes was undergoing psychiatric treatment at his University just before he dropped out of the PhD program a few days after he failed his oral exams.

Jared Lee Loughner, who attempted to kill a US Representative in Arizona, but killed 6 others. He was obviously mentally ill, and even the US Army officials said that Loughner had attempted to enlist, but his application had been rejected as "unqualified" for service in 2008. After the shooting he was ruled by a Judge to be incompetent to stand trial (although he may plead guilty soon).

Wade Michael Page killed six people at a Wisconsin Sikh temple. He enlisted in the US Army in 1992 and was given a less-than-honorable discharge in October 1998 (details undisclosed at this time). He has been informally linked to a Neo-Nazi party and white supremacist groups.

The US went through a period of communist witchhunts in the 1950's after the introduction of the Smith Act of 1940. Strangely what this was about is opposing the possible violent overthrow of the government - what we are advised was the purpose of the 2nd ammendment.

Not exactly sure what you mean by "witch-hunts." Even during the late 1940's and 1950's it was not illegal to be a member of the Communist Party. The "witch-hunts" were aimed at those members of the Communist Party who were employed by the government and who had security clearances. During this timeframe, Communist sympathizers leaked information about the nuclear technology to the USSR. It also spilled over into the entertainment industry (by private business leaders), but it was still never illegal to be a Communist. Yes, there were blacklists, just like the Chick-fil-a restaurant chain is now getting black-listed now by some because its founder and CEO opposes gay marriage.

edh wrote:

For a start make your weapon controls nationwide, this would make enforcement easier.

Next keep a government register of organisations associated with hatecrimes and terrorism. This would also allow you to do things like stopping Fred Phelps and his group from protesting at funerals of troups. I'm sure the FBI and CIA have their own lists of people and groups they monitor outside of the law, this would legitimise what they can do and set limits.

Then extend the background checks for getting a weapon. Previous affiliation with any blacklisted group equals rejection. I'm not sure how being referred to a psychiatrist works in the US but if they are referred from a doctor then a simple way would be a doctors reference being required. Ask the doctor if the person is fit to use a weapon, does not have a history of mental health issues or suicide attempts and has not been referred to a psychiatrist. If the doctor says they have been referred to a psychiatrist, check with the psychiatrist. Negative from doctor and/or pshyciatrist equals rejection.

Or change to how many other countries work their laws: any newer law replaces any older law. This is why it is not legal for anyone in the UK to kill anyone else even if they're Welsh, it's a Sunday and you happen to be the Bishop of Hereford. A common misconception in the US is that this sort of law is still valid which is just not true - ultimately the 2001 EU convention on human rights overrides it but many other laws have been in between.

It will be very difficult to completely ban guns in the US due to the 2nd amendment (and because it takes three-fourths of the state legislatures approve a change to the US Constitution). Gun advocates claim that those who want to have stricter gun registration and better background checks (to prevent mentally ill persons from obtaining weapons, for example), have a hidden agenda (or often not so hidden) of banning guns altogether. Based on the comments from this forum, this is probably true. So if people stopped talking about completely banning guns, then progress might be able to be made in the US to achieve better regulation of gun ownership to keep the crazies from getting them.

One reason it is easier to change laws in the UK is that it has no single Constitutional document, as does the US. Any act passed by Parliament becomes the law. In the US, a law can be declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, based on the US Constitution.

“Parliamentary sovereignty (also called parliamentary supremacy or legislative supremacy) is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty, and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies. The concept also holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation, and so that it is not bound by written law (even a constitution) or by precedent. Parliamentary sovereignty may be contrasted with the doctrines of separation of powers, which limits the legislature's scope often to general law-making, and judicial review, where laws passed by the legislature may be declared invalid in certain circumstances.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty

The US does not have that form of government, and there is zero chance of that ever changing.

Thats interesting to know, I know that in some countries in Europe (France, Austria and Germany, maybe others) Nazi political party's are banned and denying the Holocaust happened will get you arrested which is fine by me.

In the US, even left-leaning organizations like the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) will defend the right of Nazi's to deny the Holocaust, to make racist statements, and to conduct peaceful protests.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that there are very few limits that can be placed on Freedom of Speech as defined in the First Amendment.

it was still never illegal to be a Communist. Yes, there were blacklists, just like the Chick-fil-a restaurant chain is now getting black-listed now by some because its founder and CEO opposes gay marriage.

From the wikipedia article on "McCarthyism":

Quote:

By 1957, 140 leaders and members of the Communist Party had been charged under the law, of whom 93 were convicted.

In the US, even left-leaning organizations like the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) will defend the right of Nazi's to deny the Holocaust, to make racist statements, and to conduct peaceful protests.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that there are very few limits that can be placed on Freedom of Speech as defined in the First Amendment.

Presumably they also protect the rights of people who claim that the September the 11th "plane crashes" were not islamist terrorism, but a secret plot by some rich and powerful people from America with the help of the CIA.

By 1957, 140 leaders and members of the Communist Party had been charged under the law, of whom 93 were convicted.

Yeah, just like Chick-fil-a.

I don't want to defend McCarthyism, but the Smith Act of 1940 that the article you quoted above refers to, made it a criminal offense for anyone to:

"knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the [...] desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association."

There is no specific mention of the Communist Party in the law. It is still against the law today (AFAIK) to advocate the overthrow of the US Government by force. In many countries today, even what we consider to be advanced countries in the EU, specific named political parties are illegal per se, and my point is that this is not the case in the US. Although it was unfortunate that some people were unjustly convicted of violating the Smith Act in the 1950's, in 1957 the US Supreme Court's Yates decision ended such prosecutions by holding that defendants could be prosecuted only for their actions, not for their beliefs.

The point about Chick-fil-a is that McCarthyism also spilled over into the private sector (especially the entertainment business), but that had nothing to do with arrests or the government, it had to do with people loosing their job. There are many boycotts today, by both sides of the political spectrum but especially conducted by the left, against certain private businesses or even state tourism in the US where people end up loosing their jobs as a result of the boycotts.

The point about Chick-fil-a is that McCarthyism also spilled over into the private sector (especially the entertainment business), but that had nothing to do with arrests or the government, it had to do with people loosing their job. There are many boycotts today, by both sides of the political spectrum but especially conducted by the left, against certain private businesses or even state tourism in the US where people end up loosing their jobs as a result of the boycotts.

I personally cant see a problem with a boycott of "Chick-fil-a" for the outspoken hate filled views of the head of the company as well as funding for a hate-campaign organisation, if these things are perfectly legal then so is a boycott. As far as job losses are concerned, I doubt it would make much difference, other Chicken based food sellers will get the lost trade and need to hire more staff - lets face it, its not like people are going to "eat-les-chikin".

I personally cant see a problem with a boycott of "Chick-fil-a" for the outspoken hate filled views of the head of the company as well as funding for a hate-campaign organisation, if these things are perfectly legal then so is a boycott. As far as job losses are concerned, I doubt it would make much difference, other Chicken based food sellers will get the lost trade and need to hire more staff - lets face it, its not like people are going to "eat-les-chikin".

From a legal standpoint in the US, one is free to frequent or avoid a business as an expression of political views. That is every citizen's right. But personally, I don't like to do that except in extreme cases. I enjoy Ben & Jerry's ice cream even though I know they donate profits to political causes that I am in total disagreement with.

If you believe it is OK to do boycott products, then the issue of McCarthyism comes up (not the criminal part, but the part about people loosing the jobs in the entertainment business because of private sector black lists). If it is OK to boycott Chick-fil-a, was it OK to do that during McCarthyism in the private sector entertainment business? Well legally it is OK, but it is a dangerous and slippery slope once you go down that path.

But concerning Chick-fil-a, their business has skyrocketed after the protests because everyone who is against gay marriage is now going there, so they are now setting sales records. But anyway, I would not want to punish private franchise store owners and employees, just because the CEO has certain views.

Presumably they also protect the rights of people who claim that the September the 11th "plane crashes" were not islamist terrorism, but a secret plot by some rich and powerful people from America with the help of the CIA.

I have never heard of anyone being denied from expressing their views on that subject by the US, State, or local governments. However, any private sector TV networks or newspapers are free to air/print or not-air/not-print whatever they want. So I don't think the ACLU would ever need to get involved.

There is no specific mention of the Communist Party in the law. It is still against the law today (AFAIK) to advocate the overthrow of the US Government by force. In many countries today, even what we consider to be advanced countries in the EU, specific named political parties are illegal per se, and my point is that this is not the case in the US.

I can only speak for Germany where the specific parties forbidden are the NSDAP, the attempted rebrand SRD and the Communist Party. The NSDAP was forbidden by the Allied Council which included the United States. The latter two were banned because they were in breach of a German law (Art. 20 GG) perpetuating the republic, democracy and the social welfare state - a law which was formulated on experiences made in 1933 and encouraged by said Allied Council. The whole GG had to be approved by the Allied Powers as well. So they were essentially deemed "unconstitutional".

It's all well being against party bans until a country makes the experience of a fascist party being democratically elected into power and then abolishing democracy. Enacting laws which make a party illegal that has the abolishment of democracy in their agenda, even without explicitely calling for violence, makes a certain sense. Yes, you can always make the philosophical argument that any government can abuse this to just outlaw the competition, but at least in Germany, that has not proven to be the case in the last 60+ years. I don't think a whole lot of people would content that it was necessary for the fledgling democracy to outlaw the bureaucracy of it's predecessor dictatorship. And while the Communist Party was banned, there are other communist parties in Germany. One is currently the third biggest political party and has participated in coalition governments of various federal states.

It's also easier to be laissez-faire about it in the United States, where an electoral system is in place that makes it nigh impossible for any party outside red and blue to be elected in the first place.

Quote:

There are many boycotts today, by both sides of the political spectrum but especially conducted by the left

That's a nice display of selective perception.

Quote:

If you believe it is OK to do boycott products

Depends what you mean by boycott. If individuals or groups choose not to frequent certain businesses, it's all well.

What I've always been appalled by is the (not exclusively, but frequently) American tradition of sign-wielding in front of somebody's home or business. Because that is in my humble opinion not boycotting, but Defamation. In the same vein do I find it ridiculous to eat there to support the notion of disadvantaging a minority.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum